Skip to main content
8:30 am
8:31 am
8:32 am
in that election, the
8:33 am
proposition was simple. you want to let someone who woo vote for the ryan plan in medicare, or do you want to elect someone to vote medicare, maybe ask people making over a million dollars to sacrifice more rather than medicare. the people of the 26 congressional districts spoke loudly. they wanted a democrat that would protect medicare, and wouldn't end medicare nor fund for big companies. based on that, we think there would be similar referendum on ending medicare. host: you are calling your campaign to recruit candidates for 2012 to 2025. spain to us kwla that is about. guest: after the election when we got shalacked, we needed 25 seats to retake the majority. the branding is already stale. we have that election in new york. it is no longer the drive for
8:34 am
25, it is 24. that's the number of seats we need to retake the majority in the house of representatives, protect medicare, protect social security, make sure kids can afford to go to college. make sure there are enough cops on the street. protect homeland security. it will take 24 seats for us to do that. host: the people suggesting your job is tough all year. you are defending a smaller number of seats in play. guest: i will suggest to you this is not an easy job. i will say the data counters, the pundwits, have said the hurt l is the republican.
8:35 am
they have to curtain -- they have to appeal to those incumbents. they grabbed the loudest fulcrom they could and said with all those governors they would pick up scores of seats, dozens of seats. it turns out it is fwg to be a wash. you don't have to take my word for it, if you take those pundits. in real time, as of today, the projection is the republicans may pick up a handful of seats, maybe the democrats will pick up a handful of seats. it is going to be at a wash. most americans don't care about redistricting. they care about medicare. if they are a middle class family, they care about their
8:36 am
taxes. they don't want to pay more taxes while the richest are off the hook. that's going to be the issue in that's going to be the issue in this campaign. host: how important is this on your success? guest: the debt debate, the importance of the upcoming debt debate has less to do with my success than the survival of our country. there are times when you have to put politics aside and focus on your ability to govern responsibly. and this is one of those moments. so i don't make a little calculation with respect what happens on august 2nd. i do make a public policy calculation. that is, we have challenge and opportunity. the opportunity is to once and for all do something about the levels of our debt. and the challenge is to make sure that we are not asking the middle class that they are a disproportionate sacrifice in the pursuit of the opportunity.
8:37 am
host: let me show you this as we go to calls here. it looks like you are in equal footing. your june total for the d.c. cc $6.2 million cash on hand is $7.4 million and debt $4.7 million. let's compare it with the republicans are who were at $6.6 million, cash on hand of $8.5 million, debt of $3.5, and a similar totals cycle. what do those numbers say to you. guest: those numbers are encouraging to us. we cut that debt by more than half. we are in the mipeorte. in december we out raised the republicans to just come into
8:38 am
the majority. we raised a million dollars in december. it takes a lot of $32 to reach $ 1 million. that came from our middle class. we beat them for the first quarter. they beat us in this quarter, but not by very much. at the end of the day, we were parity. i don't know that that has happened. happened. the fact we are at parity bodes well for us. host: caller.
8:39 am
caller: hello, mr. israel. guest: hello there. caller: we can't pay the social security tax, we can't pay the medicare tax. we can't pay no tax, because the illegals are working unthe table . host: let's get a response. guest: hugh, i don't know what guest: hugh, i don't know what about those past few minutes leads you to believe that.
8:40 am
you didn't hear those words because they weren't said. we need to as with the debt ceiling, we theed a balanced approach. we need a compromise. i have for the longest period of time advocated a balanced approach that will do two things. i believe it will be greater and stronger enforcement at our borders. i supported those steps. we also need a path to deal with the people who have come here and stayed here. so we have offered a compromise which john mccain supported early on. it says, if you are willing to pay a fine, pay penalty, meet other pen much marks, we will consider making you eligible for zip. if you are -- eligible for citizenship. if you are not willing to play by those rules, then you will be deported. that is what we need. stronger enforcement at the borders and a path to healing for those who came here
8:41 am
illegally. if you are just for borders and not for any kind of path for those here, you are going to be disappointed. if you are only for legalization and you are not for border enforcement, you are going to be disappointed. for most people in the middle who understand the need for compromise, that plan represents a step forward. it represents progress. i hope that we will be able to develop the kind of compromise and consensus necessary to fully address this challenge. host: ray, democrat, you are on the air. caller: mr. israel, i have a question for you. the republicans keep saying that, you know, we cut here, we cut there. isn't it going to save jobs here? how much have we given to corporations, to big oil, and everybody else? where do these jobs go? they go to china, mexico, and other countries. they don't pay taxes on this money.
8:42 am
we have the stupidest law, this equal thing with naftia and everything else. they pay less to import their stuff back there than we pay to export our stuff out. this is where the jobs are. and until someone gets some brains down there to figure this thing out, stop giving money to corgses. -- corporations. that's the only way you are going to go to get money in taxes. you account for unemployment because they are drawing money. you don't count the people actually out of jobs. guest: first, i think you are absolutely correct. you understand that there is a connection between jobs, job growth, and debt.
8:43 am
you cannot reduce job growth without debt. you cannot have jobs in america when you are essentially subsidizing corporations to sift subsidizing corporations to sift those jobs overseas. when somebody works, then they pay taxes. they may not like to pay taxes. i don't know anybody who does. but when somebody works, they pay taxes, and that helps fund the critical services they need for benefits. including the troops fighting in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real.
8:44 am
if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class.
8:45 am
host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united states, and we need to make more back. host: how do you feel being
8:46 am
owned by fiat? guest: not happy about it, but we had a meltdown in this country, we had banks collapsing, and we did what needed to be done to rescue the economy. no one was happy about it. but sometimes you have to rise to the occasion and use the tools you have to ensure you don't have that break. caller: would you explain how ryan budget would end medicare? guest: sure, now you go to the doctor, and the doctor takes care of you and they are reimbursed. under the ryan plan, you have a
8:47 am
doctor on the plan, your expenses may or may not be paid by that voucher. the congressional budget office said for that expense for seniors, that voucher would leave you out of pocket. that's the medicare benefit. that's the medicare benefit. under the ryan plan,
8:48 am
8:49 am
8:50 am
nlrb and others will have to
8:51 am
deal with. but if there is a corporation that is making a decision to escape their responsibilities or evade their responsibilities, i believe there needs on to be a due process for that issue. and that's why i am where i am on this. host: mark stone wants to go back to medicare. guest: we have said that we will negotiate to improve medicare and reform medicare. we will not negotiate to cost seniors out of pocket, and that's number one. my final point on this is simple, we can find efficiencies in medicare and we can find efficiencies in medicare, but those savings ought to be put back into strengthening medicare. they shouldn't be to fund tax
8:52 am
cuts for people making over 1 million dollars. we should not use medicare and use those savings for tax cuts that are doing fine. or for companies offshore jobs. this needs to be a shared fund, and i agree that we need to strengthen medicare and use those for medicare. host: the fact that medicare fraud in the billions is reported for years. why has congress not done anything about the reports to that extent? guest: there are a variety of ideas to address fraud. there is fraud overall, and it's fraud everywhere. so my point is that's where we
8:53 am
should start. let's start going after the $60 billion fraud in medicare, and not ask the senior citizens to shell out of their pocket. and that's the difference between republicans and democrats. host: rochester, new york with congressman israel, joe, you are on the air. caller: you ask great questions. senator, i used to be a supervisor and went to a big grocery chain and burger king and i can't get away from the anger of people. and a lot of points brought up. the word medicaid never comes up, we have a welfare system of billions of dollars being used by people that will never get out of that thing.
8:54 am
it's a generation of family after family and never get the pride of using a first paycheck. and other things, i will tell you what people are saying. they are saying that a lot of people in congress, the senate and washington are the same people that made the mistake that put us in the predictment right now. people are saying that they are afraid of the administration, there is a lot of anger in the communities. when you go to one stop and people are asking questions. i don't know what to say, unless don't give up i will let you answer that question. guest: thanks joe, i understand there is a lot of anxiety out there. the strength of this nation has always been its ability to overcome challenge. we have faced this challenge
8:55 am
before. rather than speaking in rhetoric, let me give you a specific solution to what we can do about the challenges we have. where democrats and republicans in the past kroocooperated. we have had job crises since the american revolution. and you know what this country has done when we face the economic challenge we have now? we built with our hands, we built our way out of those. after the revolution, you know what we did, we built the eerie canal, we knew we could grow the country, the tennessee valley authority, the works progress and civil core. in the 1950s, dwight t.
8:56 am
eisenhower, one of my favorite president helped with the crisis. and those who went with the plan to make a safer democracy, didn't have jobs. and he said fine, we will build bridges and roads and built that highway system. why aren't we doing that again? instead of everyone blaming and do what went right, and build again. i believe we should be able to find bipartisan compromise on an infrastructure program. that is not just a public sector, but pools private capital to rebuild our bridges and airports and broadband. we have 135,000 bridges in america that the federal government has deemed
8:57 am
insufficient. we have roads whose pavement is unacceptable. joe, i live in rhode island and i drive over the tapestry bridge and those know that it needs work. we have stopped invested in the infrastructure. but meanwhile in china they are rebuilding bridges. and we ought to be building that bridge and assembling that bridge, and that's how you create jobs. every dollar you put into the infrastructure provides jobs. and that's what we need to do, and that's what we need to do, quit arguing about what has gone right. and start learning from what has
8:58 am
gone right. create jobs and build our way out of this. host: just a few minutes left before the house comes back into session and our program ends. max, you are on the air. caller: yes, thank you, susan for take "math line" call. -- my call. i noticed that there was not a democratic vote. i hear this conversation about tax warfare, and everything else, and this plan does this and that, when will we see a democrat plan? when will we see what president wants to cut? what democrats want on the table? why we don't have a budget for the two years they are in charge? i want to know yeah, class
8:59 am
warfare, it sounds great but what will we do to fix our problems? thank you. guest: max, thank you for the question, and i will remind you that the president submitted a budget to congress for revenues and spending cuts. the last thing that the democrats did when in majority we voted on cuts. so the fact of the matter is that we have proposed budgets, we have passed budgets, we have made those cuts. now moving forward, here is what we are saying to the republicans who are in the majority of the house of representatives and now have the responsibility of passing a budget. we will work with you and provide votes based on the parameters i mentioned before.
9:00 am
it protects the middle class, it it protects the middle class, it does not end welfare and it strengthens our economy and it does add jobs. you call that class warfare, i call it fairness. i call it fairness to a family with kids in college, we won't raise the cost of college but to provide common sense fairness for the middle class. host: thank you for being here, the house of representatives are coming into session today, live coverage begins. thanks for being with us, have a good weekend. clear together at the end of a long week, bless the work of its members. give them strength, fortitude
9:01 am
cle clear fill their hearts with charity, their minds wi c do the right thing for all of america. the work they have is difficult work. may they rise together to accomplish what is best for our great nation and indeed for all the world, for you have blessed us with many graces and given us the responsibility of being a light shining on a hill. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania today, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god,
9:02 am
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. president obama has systematically and recklessly attacked the general aviation industry. it's one of america's last remaining great manufacturing industries, employing over 1.2 million people, and adding $1.-- 150 billion of economic activity each year. he's demonized its users and drawn a line in the sand for higher taxes. who is president obama hurting? bill gates? warren buffett? no, he's hurting line workers in wichita kansas and all over the country. mr. pompeo: he's trying to hurt small business owners trying to
9:03 am
close business deals. these attacks are only a diversion, a distraction from the failed economic policies of this administration. his policies have left us with a $1.6 trillion deficit this year alone and a loss of over two million jobs during his time in office. mr. speaker, the aviation industry is not asking for a bailout like he gave the auto guys. just leave us alone. get out of the way. we have a community that just wants to create jobs and grow our economy. that may not be your agenda, mr. president, but it's certainly mine. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: the latest attack on elderly beneficiaries of social security is a scheme by which seniors' cost of living benefits would be cut through something called a chained consumer price index, the c.p.i., chained involves a formula which recalculates the cost of living. the theory behind the chained
9:04 am
c.p.i. is that as the cost of living goes up consumers in this case, seniors, buy cheaper products. for example, if poor seniors cannot afford to buy and eat steak but can buy to eat cheaper cat food, their cost of living benefit would be chained to the cost of the cat food because it's cheaper than steak and as a result seniors will see their cost of living benefit reduced to the cheaper product and get a smaller social security check. the changed c.p.i. sets up seniors for reduced standard of living. if you must afford less, you get less social security benefits. the chained c.p.i., chaining seniors to poverty. time to break those chains. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fitzpatrick: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
9:05 am
mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. today i have the high honor and solemn task of rising to commemorate the life and service of master sergeant kenneth elwell who was killed in action in afghanistan this past sunday. sergeant elwell who enlisted in the army shortly after his graduation from high school was killed along with a fellow infantryman by an i.e.d. during a routine foot patrol in kandahar on the morning of july 17. he leaves behind a wife, christian, and two children, a mother, and countless other family, friends, and lives that he touched. while those close to sergeant elwell have lost a husband, father, brother, and friend america, too, has lost a hero. he served our nation because he loved our nation. his sister summed up his services perfectly when she said he did what he loved so we could do the simple everyday things we take for granted. and although the grief of the family must be overwhelming, i
9:06 am
hope that they are able to take a measure of solace in the gratitude of the nation kenneth died defending. tonight his community will honor and remember him, but as the duty of all of us here in congress and across our grateful nation to never forget his ultimate sacrifice and the family that he leaves behind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to honor and recognize the rich history of liberia as we mark liberian independence day on july 26. we honor people of liberia and those individuals of proud liberian descent who are celebrating 164 years of independence. today we celebrate a great country, its people, their traditions, and the mark they have made on cities like providence, rhode island, and others, making them great places to live, work, and raise families. rhode island's flourishing liberian community has played an important role in making the
9:07 am
state what it is today and i would like to thank them for their great contributions. i'm proud to honor your heritage and the difference you have made in our state and in this country. recently along with my colleagues here in the congress, i had the opportunity to welcome the president of the republic of liberia, her excellency ellen johnson sirleaf to washington and confirmed our support for liberian peace efforts. may we continue to be inspired to support the people of liberia through their democratic transition as we celebrate liberian independence day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: madam speaker, last night i had a town hall. obviously i wasn't there i had to be here, so we did it by way of internet, and it was amazing how the consensus of those who were there was a request for those of us to take seriously our leadership responsibilities and do something about the fiscal mess we are in.
9:08 am
in answering them i was thinking about what the president's bipartisan deficit commission leaders said about the plan we passed here in the house. they called it a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. sounds like that's the answer to the questions that were being asked last night by my constituents. interestingly enough, there is a poll out rendering an opinion by the american people on the cut, cap, and balance bill that we passed here in the house. over 60% of the american people happen to think it's a good idea. perhaps we ought to stop the name-calling and look at what the american people are telling us to do and get serious as the president's bipartisan deficit commission said, come up with a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. walz: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: madam speaker, i'm told on a daily basis by my
9:09 am
republican colleagues what the american people want. i certainly respect the elections certificates of my colleagues. i would ask they respect mine. i also am not sure where they find the time to travel to these other districts to hear my colleagues and my constituents are telling me we were sent here to make democracy work. to come come up with a balanced approach and make this country's fiscal responsibilities take them seriously. the poll the gentleman just mentioned there was a cbs poll out yesterday, 2/3 of the american public want a balanced approach. that means a combination of cuts to revenues to balance our fiscal crisis. with that being said, we have a large number of members who take pledges. pledges to not raise taxes. pledges to not ask oil companies to pay one penny more. the only pledge a member of this house should ever make is when they raise their hands to serve the constitution and this country. i'm also told many times in this house what the intent of our founding fathers was. now, while that's opened for debate, there's one thingle i'm certainly positive about.
9:10 am
when our founders gathered together they create add government not a wall street bank. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: in december the president caved to the republicans and extended all the bush tax cuts. immediately increasing this year's deficit by $00 billion, and the 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. precipitating the great debt and deficit crisis. now, we are hearing from the press today that the president is preparing yet another great cave. instead of saying we will have some revenues to solve this problem, he is apparently about to cut a deal that will be all cuts. so its inic, he cuts taxes to create a crisis, and then we cut spending to protect the tax cuts because tax cuts create jobs except they haven't created jobs, but we've got to continue
9:11 am
to protect them. it's all very, very sad. if we get rid of all the bush tax cuts, $4 trillion, no cuts in social security, no cuts in medicare, no cuts in veterans' benefits. and $4 trillion less deficit. now that would be an equitable solution. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: thank you, madam speaker, in the five years leading up to the collapse in 2008, 67% of the new wealth created in this nation accumulated in hands of the richest 1%. they now control about 2/5 of all the money in this nation. but our republican friends block them out of their line of sight when they look to see who can pay for our mounting deficit. they see only social security recipients and medicare recipients and the disabled and hungry. it was bad enough that we were crazy enough as a nation to fight $two trillion dollar wars while cutting taxes for the
9:12 am
wealthy. now republicans are asking only the most vulnerable to help pay for it. and threatening to collapse the world economy by defaulting on american debt at the same time. i won't stand for it, madam speaker. and my constituents won't, either. social security and medicare recipients didn't get us into two mismanaged wars. they didn't get the benefit of the bush tax cuts. and they shouldn't have to pay for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? oofl a mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on further consideration of h.r. 2551 and that i may include tabular materials of the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 351 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further
9:13 am
consideration of h.r. 2551. will the gentlewoman from illinois, mrs. biggert, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2551, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, july 21, 2011, amendment number 11 printed in the house report 112-173 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, had been disposed of. pursuant to the order of the house of thursday, july 21, 2011 it is now in order to consider
9:14 am
amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-173. printed in house report 112-173. does the gentleman from new jersey seek to -- recognition at this time? mr. holt: i do, madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12, printed in house report number 112-173, offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: thank you, madam chair. for 23 years congress had the benefit of a really excellent organization, the office of technology assessment. the o.t.a. helped congress look
9:15 am
at the policy implications of new technologies. then 16 years ago o.t.a. was defunded. when congress turned out the lights, they argued that other organizations would provide what o.t.a. did. think tanks, academy, universities. we now have 16 years of evidence that we have not gotten from these other source what is we got from o.t.a. we need o.t.a. now more than ever and my amendment would shift a mere $2.5 million into o.t.a. to breathe life back into this important agency that had a great record of improving congressional decisionmaking, preventing tax dollar waste, and generally improving the debate on many policy issues. o.t.a. is still in the books. it was simply defunded. with this amendment can be funded again. the money comes from a well funded little used trust fund for capital building revitalization. . the o.t.a. produced nonpartisan
9:16 am
studies on a huge variety of subjects. listen to some of the reports all produced by o.t.a. in the years before it was defunded 16 years ago. adverse reaction to vaccines, retiring old cars to save gasoline and reduce emissions, environmental impact of bioenergy crop production, testing in schools, treatment of alzheimer's disease. think about it. these studies, a few of the many, on issues of great concern to us today was written before 1995. the o.t.a. was the best tool congress has had with the inability to look forward, to look at problem solving. in other words, our congressional attention deficit disorder. 16 years ago, congress hoped to save money by cutting o.t.a. and in the process we lost one of our best opportunities to save money by avoiding costly mistakes. it is documented that o.t.a.
9:17 am
saved taxpayers several hundred million dollars by understanding the best i.t. system used by the social security administration, millions of dollars of savings through better agent orange programs, billions of dollars of syn fuel corporation. some in congress did not like to hear o.t.a. call into question some of the extraffic get claims of the missile defense contractors. the history shows o.t.a. was right and the missile defense folks at the pentagon have spent a decade working around the problems uncovered. some in congress complained that o.t.a. reports did not have the quick turnaround of, say, c.r.s., but that just the point. o.t.a. is the antidote to the myopia that comes from our very short attention cycle. o.t.a. never advocated policy solutions. it didn't play politics. these are our jobs, but we need help. o.t.a. was of congress and for congress.
9:18 am
they knew our language and our decisionmaking framework. that's why our organizations never really filled the void created by the defunding of o.t.a. if we had a functioning o.t.a. in recent years, i think there's little doubt that we could have been more aware of and better prepared to deal with looming shortages of vaccines, to extend high-quality medical care to rural regions, to employ effective techniques for oil spill cleanup or to reduce the risks of cell phone hacking. to name just a few issues of current interest. the office of technology assistance never was a panacea. however, it is the best institutional tool we have had to recognize the policy implications of technology trends, to digest arguments involving technology, to expos some of our own -- expose some of our own blind spots. in other words, to illuminate
9:19 am
and inform our legislating. we in congress have not distinguished ourselves in recognizing and comprehending trends of implication and implications of technology. now, most of our colleagues here in this body do not know o.t.a. ever existed. most members do not miss it. this shows, i think, just how bad low we need it. always, the first step in dealing with a shortcoming is acknowledging that we have it. we badly need o.t.a. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> madam chairman, to claim time in opposition. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the amendment? >> yes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate very much the the
9:20 am
gentleman from new jersey's passion for this program. he mentioned that they turned out the lights in 1996. and i can't help but wonder why the lights haven't been turned on in the last 15 years, and i talked to the gentleman yesterday and i didn't know much about the o.t.a. mr. crenshaw: but i couldn't help but wonder why in the midst of the financial mess we find our country in that he would pick this time to try to resuscitate a program that has laid sleeping for 15 years. i don't know if he tried every year to resuscitate this program and nobody was listening. i hope he's tried before. there were probably times when money was more plentiful and he might had a better chance of
9:21 am
bringing back a new program, a little more government. but i think this is just bad timing. i told him if he wants to continue to try to educate the members and tell him what a wonderful program it was up until 1996, that maybe someday that it would be resuscitated. but the members should know in 2008 we gave $.5 million to the government accountability office to -- $2.5 million to the government accountability office to do these technological assessments and they've been doing that for the last four years. yes, i'd be glad to yield. mr. holt: in answer to your two questions, the first, as i said, the fact that this body doesn't know that it lacks o.t.a. is the strongest argument of how badly we need it. mr. crenshaw: reclaiming my time. i -- reclaiming my time, if this was simply a question of education, i hope the gentleman has been working diligently for the past few years as hard as
9:22 am
he worked for the last 24 hours to make people aware and to crank this thing back up. but, again, this is the wrong time to try to start a new government program. mr. holt: if the gentleman would yield further? mr. crenshaw: be glad to year. mr. holt: there is a little used trust fund for building revitalization that is unlikely to be spent in the coming year. mr. crenshaw: that's an energy question, too. reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. i appreciate that question and that $30 million is there to use to make sure that we protect the health and safety of people in our buildings here so i understand it won't cost any more money but it's just a brand new federal program that i think is not a good time to be trying to do that. again, if you've been trying to do that for the last 15 years and nobody's been listening then it must not be all that great a program. again, i appreciate you being a champion of that and maybe
9:23 am
someday it will come back to life. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: i will yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. honda: thank you, madam chair. to answer the question about whether it's a new program. it hasn't been. it's been defunded back in 1996. since 2008, through g.a.o., we have been trying to fund it through there and build it up since then. but still a lot of folks didn't understand that this body is -- really doesn't need the kind of technological development in public and private sector and harness outside experiences in the form of advisory panels and peer review what g.a.o. and c.r.s. could not do and we could do through this program.
9:24 am
the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: has his time expired? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. mr. crenshaw: i ask my colleagues to vote no on this. i thank him for bringing us the attention. i think it's strange that it has not been funded for the past 15 years. i think now is the wrong time to crank it up. maybe there's some private, non profit corporations that could do this on a volunteer untear bay -- voluntary basis. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. crenshaw: madam chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed.
9:25 am
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: and i yield to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for -- is recognized. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i want to speak about an amendment mr. moran is about to offer. this is about the use of styrofoam in our cafeterias. you may remember that in 2007 then speaker nancy pelosi established the greening of the capitol program and the goal was to make the u.s. house of representatives a national leader in resource stewardship in sustainable business practices. and we made significant progress. and one of the places where we made progress is we replaced the styrofoam in the cafeteria and used repsycheable dish
9:26 am
wear. mcdonald's doesn't use styrofoam. use ago mcdonald's and other fast food restaurants replaced styrofoam with recycleable paper. polystyrene is not recycleable. most end up in landfills. in 1986 the e.p.a. named polystyrene the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste. we should adopt the moran amendment and do it the right way. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. dicks: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. who claims time? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise?
9:27 am
mr. moran: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the title -- designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 112-173 offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 359, the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: thank you very much, madam chairman. madam chairman, at the beginning of the year, the house did away with the composting program that had been part of the green the capitol initiative. it had been -- it had been a success. people around the country were watching it, and in fact following the example that we set. but at the beginning of the year, as i say, the house of representatives instituted the use of polystyrene containers. my amendment would limit the use of funds made available by
9:28 am
this legislative branch appropriations bill to obtain polystyrene products in our food services facilities. we should show our commitment to the health of our visitors and our employees and the future of our environment. we should lead by example. that's the program that we had in place until this january. the house should be using recycleable and biodegradeable products and should be avoiding polystyrene foam packaging. we should be a model institution for others to follow. as the gentleman from vermont said, over 0 years ago mcdonald's and other -- 20 years ago mcdonald's and other fast food restaurants replaced polystyrene with recycleable products. the house of representatives are the only members of the capitol complex to revert back to foam packaging. these are the senate, the library of congress, the
9:29 am
capitol visitors center use polystyrene products. congress should be setting the example for sustainability in the 21st century. we should be leading by example, and my amendment provides a way through which we can show that leadership to the thousands of constituents who visit our offices each year. polystyrene is practically unrecycleable. they normally end up in landfills and incinerators. problems is cancerous chemicals, minimal recycleability and toxic byproducts that are released during incineration. a 1986 e.p.a. report on solid waste named that polystyrene manufacturing process the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste. and toxic chemicals leak out of these containers into the foods and drink they contain and they endanger the human health and
9:30 am
the reproductive systems of the people who visit the capitol and who work in the capitol. 105 members have sent a letter to house leadership asking that they eliminate polystyrene from house food service operations. my amendment would do just that, by limiting the funds made available from this act to be able to purchase polystyrene containers. i reserve the balance of my time, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: madam chairman, i yield myself one minute simply to give you three good reasons why we should defeat this amendment. number one, it really doesn't do anything because we don't spend any money in this bill for house restaurant services. they are funded through a revolving trust fund and that money comes from another source so it wouldn't have any impact in the first place. number two, if it did have impact all it would do is raise the cost of everything in the restaurants and be passed on to
9:31 am
the folks and that's not a great thing to spend more money. and number three, the reason that the gentleman mentioned, this year there was a bipartisan letter from the chairman of the house administration committee, along with the ranking member, to say we tried this program, we're going to end it. so for those three reasons i think it would be appropriate to vote no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: the argument that the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. moran: thank you, the argument that the gentleman makes, first of all seems to me we should set ourselves on record and the appropriations bill is the ultimate source of funding for the capitol complex. but the argument that this will save money it seems to me is
9:32 am
deficient when we are talking about human health. i mean we could choose not to spend money on pure filing our water -- purifying our water. we would save a lot of money. let people drink out of the tap or get their water wherever, but we feel that the health of our employees and our constituents who visit us is important enough that we should invest that money. science is telling us that in fact toxic leak from this material into the food and the drink that our employees and our constituents are using. now, that science may not be as prominent. may not be as fully aware of that. but we know that polystyrene is a toxic material. and it seems to me we should err on the side of caution, particularly when the health of
9:33 am
our employees and our constituents are concerned. i'll continue to reserve what time is remaining. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: madam chair, i'd like to yield three minutes to the chairman of the house administration committee, the author of the letter in the program beginning january, mr. lungren. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: as chairman of the house administration when we received a letter from the democratic side of the aisle as part of the transition team recommending that we discontinue this part of the greening initiative process, greening the capitol process. that is this one did not work. it was the democrats that told us we ought to get rid of it. once i heard that, i also heard of complaints from both democratic and republican members of the house and their staff that the repsychible
9:34 am
utensils we had didn't work. they asked for something that did work. so we canceled the program. this idea about styrofoam being a real health hazard, linda burnbalm, the toxicologist who heads the government agency that declare styrene a likely cancer said this. let me put your mind at ease right away about styrofoam. in finished products styrene is not an issue. the gentleman has said and the other the gentleman from vermont said we ought to if mcdonald's. they no longer have this product. yesterday my staff went out and got this product from mcdonald's which is styrofoam. got this product from mcdonald's which is styrofoam. i don't know where they get this information. lastly, they should understand that polystyrene is approved as safe for use in food service by the f.d.a. anything that contains food
9:35 am
product that comes into contact with individuals must be approved by the f.d.a. this is approved by the f.d.a. also this week we are receiving bids back from our request for proposal on trying to get a waste to energy recycling program to get rid of the waste that we have here on the hill. this is to turn it into energy by way of heat energy and capture any of the offensive byproducts that may be produced. this is what we are doing. look, you can have good science and bad science. you can have smart science, you can have dumb science. you can have science or no science. i'm not sure which of the latter categories this proposal falls into, but it's not science. science suggests this is something that ought to be appropriate. there are any number of producers of polley sty reap in members' districts around this country, there are 2,100 users of it. this amounts to billions of
9:36 am
dollars and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. 8,000 just in california alone. once again we are using bad science to scare people. what's the impact? it's going to cost more money. i approved of this program because it saves a half a million dollars in a single year. a half a million dollars, it will save energy and we will have literally no residue when we move from waste to energy production. it's a win-win-win situation. by the way, members of our staffs have thanked me for doing this. we can now have utensils that are usible. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. moran: first of all the letter that was sent did not request polystyrene products by any means. it was referring to another product that was corn based. certainly mr. brady was not recommending styrofoam cups.
9:37 am
but the gentleman from california would like -- i'll yield to him for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: madam chairman, i yield the remaining time to a member of the subcommittee, mr. calvert from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. calvert: thank you, madam chairman. before i came here to congress, i was in the restaurant business. and we had to please the customers that we served. we certainly couldn't give them an inferior product. only in washington, d.c., would we spend more and get less. the gentleman from california just referred $500,000 a year more in cost and if you did a survey of the people who used those products, it would be dismal. i had the experience of putting
9:38 am
a fork in a hot piece of meat one day and it melted. that is ridiculous. we in the congress should not give inferior products to the people who work here and serve here and spend more money for it. so with that, madam chairman, let's just do the common sense thing here, get a product that works and spend less money. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amount is not agreed to. -- the amendment is not agreed to. mr. moran: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i move that the
9:39 am
committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the committee does rise. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2551 drkts me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2551 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair will receive a message.
9:40 am
the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam second. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 1383, cited as the restoring g.i. bill fairness act of 2011, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the houses is taking a short recess, live coverage at 10
9:41 am
eastern on c-span. you are watching c-span that brings politics and public affai affairs, everyone morning it's "washington journal," weekdays watch live coverage of the u.s. house and also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends you can see the signature programs, on the saturdays "the communicators" and on sunday "prime minister's questions." c-span, washington your way. a public service created by american cable companies. >> what would that have been like to have met these people when you didn't know the ending? >> in the garden of the beast.
9:42 am
>> i looked for characters to tell that story, ideally outsiders and americans, and that's when i stumbled on the american ambassador. >> sunday night on c-span's "q & a." it takes a behind the stacks look, the "l. a. times" calls it required tv viewing. c-span's library of congress, sunday night at 9 eastern on c-span. >> and once again the house is in recess as they prepare for votes on legislative branch spending until about 10 o'clock this morning. until then tom coburn joined us on "washington journal" to talk about the debt talks.
9:43 am
host: we are pleased to be back and we have tom coburn on the news, and announced zone 9 trillion dollar debt scheme and we will talk about this. senator the headlines this morning suggested that if there is a deal between the senate, that your colleagues are really angry of being excluded from it. help people understand where things are now? guest: clearunderstand where they are. if they have negotiated something they agreed to, why would they complain? it is the whole washington silliness of complaining because you don't know what's going on. nobody knows what's going on except the principals in the
9:44 am
room, and when they come to something they file feel they can build a case for on both sides, they will put it out there. i was a part of the gang of six discussion. the idea is to get us moving. they should be listening. maybe they need to offer something themselves. that's been the problem. we haven't had any offers. we have seen the republicans offering multiple things. we have a bill on the senate they are going to table that actually fixes the problem, raises the debt limit, and they don't want to vote on it, so we're going to table it. so i think it is all political posturing. host: you know frequently this town works to the brink. is there anything different about this time? do you think a deal will be done?
9:45 am
guest: i certainly hope so. the root for us, as every american, is if we don't get a deal done, i think it will cost us a half of one percent. even if we got a deal done 10 days later, i think it costs us a half of one percent. that's $75 billion a year in terms of the damage to our credit. increased interest cost. i think another thing we need to do -- you have to ask what the problem is. the problem isn't the negotiation between the republicans and democrats, it is not between the president and the speaker. the problem is for us to maintain our debt rating we have to have a program that cuts about $4 trillion at a minimum about $4 trillion at a minimum over the next 10 years. every interest interest grurengs i was listening to your calls beforehand. every interest group says they don't want to get touched. the fact is every interest group
9:46 am
will be get touched. everybody that's comfortable with their benefit is going to be a little less comfortable if we're all as a country going to get out of this. host: we had a number of callers saying congress should cut its own salary. i have a washington post article saying coburn should leave by example. what are you offering? >> cut our salary by 15%. actually, there wouldn't be anything wrong with cutting our salaries until we decrease the budget deficit. cut our expepses back 15%. we cut them back 5% this yeamplet in other words make us have to do some of the hard -- i mean, our budgets are ludicrous. i trim back $600,000 every year. >> you are allocated money --
9:47 am
>> that i don't need. what you have to ask is, if i can do that, can't everybody? that's 20% of my budget. host: your 900 trillion plan, where is it going to go? >> it ising going to go anywhere now. no one is looking at it. this is the first time they have researched what gao has said what the congressional research has said, what the individual inspector generals have said, what o.m.b. has said, plus we what o.m.b. has said, plus we have done our own research and said, gosh, given all these facts, common sense would say you do this. so there are 3,000 references in there to studies on our recommendations that we've made. and so i hope it becomes a place where people go to find out information about what we can
9:48 am
cut. we could have done more. england just recently said you could recently cut 14% out of the pentagon. his assessment is that you could cut 14% of the civilian payroll out of the peg -- pentagon. that's $150 million over 10 years. that's a lot of money. host: what do you say about this being a naive cut? guest: washington doesn't cut because washington cares more about being re-elected than they do about the public. it comes from a lack of courage to stand up and do the best right thing for our country. when you are threw up -- through up here and you get out and the country is belly up r. you say,
9:49 am
well i believe careerism is killing us. term limits and a balanced budget amendment, term limits and a balanced budget amendment would fix everything that's wrong with washington. wrong with washington. host: you answer this twitter questioner, which says, "would you vote for the house balanced budget in a recession?" guest: yes, because it will take a period of time for that to move through the states. we have to be careful how fast we cut, but we need to cut and we need to cut quickly. otherwise we're between two lanes. if we don't cut quickly enough, we're going to have the amount we cut in offset with increased interest costs. if we cut too fast, i mean, we can cut fast, but if we cut too
9:50 am
fast, we'll have a negative impact on our economic growth. so we have to go down that line. that's why $4 trillion is a minimum. host: in the wall street journal this morning, his name is peter shelkin, he is a co-editor of understanding america, the anatomy of an exceptional nation. second year at law school. he one paragraph. "i can think of no other law that would alo judges to exercise more budget-making decision than a balanceed budget amendment. even if the courts simply did their job and did not grasp for that power." guest: we have a judge sitting on the bench today that should be impeached.
9:51 am
the fact is you will never control washington with today's politicians until you put a bridle and a bit in their mouth that says you can't spend money you don't have. it won't hatch l happen. -- it won't happen. host: one more column. grover nor quift has a piece where he is explaining his position on taxes. "read my lips, no new taxes. why republicans should not relent." he was on our program and talking about you specifically. we want to replay that quote. >> the difference of opinions between coburn and americans for tax reform, between coburn and the 225 members that signed the pledge is we are for tax reform but not for tax increases, and coburn vote forward a $2 trillion tax increase when he
9:52 am
endorsed obama's deficit plan. all three members of the republicans in the gang of six not only took the pledge not to raise taxes but then wrote me a letter saying, look, we are not going to raise taxes. we just want economic growth. i'm for that. coburn has publicly said in the past that he likes tax increases. that passed him by. the republican leadership in the house made it clear that if coburn continues to be for tax increases, he's on his lonesome on that and no one else has joined him. host: senator coburn? guest: i think he represents the silliness of our political system today. i don't want to raise taxes. i think it is terrible that we would have to raise more taxes. but if we're going to get in agreement in washington to fix our problems when those of us don't want to raise taxes control the house of
9:53 am
representatives, don't control the senate, don't control the white house, it is pretty stupid and naive to think you are going to win that battle. i would rather fix our country and lose a battle with grover norquist then send our country norquist then send our country down the tubes and raise a point of view that is suicide. the fact is, in is a lot of way to enhance the federal government. reforming the tax code is a great way to do it. we have to get $4 trillion. that doesn't go away no matter what anybody says. the president didn't have a deficit plan. the president's commission had a deficit plan. he never enbraced it. you see the games played with the numbers, which aren't accurate. realistic things. plus, revenues are at the lowest point. we're at 15.8%. revenues are as a percentage of
9:54 am
g.d.p. i think there are tons of tax credits and things in the tax credits and things in the tax codes that are unfair that we ought to eliminate. anybody that gets something out of the tax code today in terms of the tax credit and the tax spend tour, you are paying for it if you didn't get one. it is a matter of shifting costs around. if you don't have a special deal on the tax code that you can take advantage of, you can actually pay more taxes. host: here is part of the plan, reduce the deficit $9 trillion over 10 years. reduce medicaid and medicare spending by $2.6 billion. eliminate $1 trillion in tax
9:55 am
breaks. that is part of senator coburn's plan. the "gang of six "budget's plan is to reduce the deficit $4 trillion over 10 years, overhaul the tax code $1 trillion, immediate spending cuts of $500 billion. caller: i appreciate what you are saying, but i think the whole problem of everything that we're going through in this country right now has to come down to one simple thing. and that is separate ralte racial of powers. now, a lot of people get this miscon trude with oh, you mean separation of church and state. no. well, yes and no. in their derrick the church was the big power. kings and queens could not move without the permission of the church. nowadays it is big business.
9:56 am
when you have big business influence washington, d.c., people like yourself, this is what you are going to get. you cannot have foxes guarding the hen house. host: all right. your response. guest: if you talk about specific tax credits, i think he's right. i don't think it is just big business. i think it is the aarp, i think it is the big labor unions. i think it is everybody. the whole fact is the federal the whole fact is the federal government is too big and it is in areas it shouldn't be. if you read the constitution, you also read the enumerated powers which gives limited powers to the federal government and specifically states everything not listed here is reserved for the people in the states. the reason we have a $3.6 trillion, $3.7 trillion budget, is a trillion and a half of that or more is stuff that's not our responsibility in the first place. sho look, i'm one of the few
9:57 am
republicans that stands up and says i think we need to eliminate some of these tax loopholes, but i think we need to do it in a way that doesn't grow the government. host: here's a comment from kevin mccarthy. he writes "projected entitle ments are between 25 and 50 billion. why are we not more focused on cutting this spending instead by fixing the current epidemic of illegal immigrants in the u.s.?" guest: that's a good question. we are at the point where there ought to be nothing that we are not doing. we ought to be looking at everything. this spring i spent three days all across arizona where the vast majority of our problems are. that is not an unfixable
9:58 am
problem. the problem is, we're not getting straight answers from the department of homeland security. we're not completing what we know will work. we're not training new border patrol agents to be as effective as they can because they don't have the language skills. we put them out there without the language skills. they are right. the senate hasn't done anything this year because the leader of the senate doesn't want to take his votes. his votes. there's an election coming up in 18 months. that's crazy. we haven't had a budget in 2 1/2 years. the reason we haven't had a budget is they don't want their member to cast a vote that might be cast in a way that might hurt them in election.
9:59 am
host: another caller. caller: i wish you would add eye -- i wish you would add "investors' business daily" to your list of newspapers. host: ok. caller: i promise if they drafted you, you woo get at least one vote from connecticut.
disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/22/2011